The hypocrisy of Ron Paul and his supporters

The rabid supporters of twice unsuccessful Presidential candidate Ron Paul claim their candidate is different from the others but when he comes under attack for using his foundations to further his political career, they chime in with a defense that claims other candidates do the same thing.

In the end, the partisan supporters of the Texas Congressman who is sometimes a Libertarian, sometimes a Republican and always a conspiracy-touting extremist are no different than the die-hard backers of former presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.

“It is kind of funny that the standard defense of Ron Paul using his foundations for political purposes is that old excuse that ‘everybody does it.’ Everybody doesn’t do it. Most use political action committees for that purpose,” GOP strategist John Lawrence tells Capitol Hill Blue. “It is typical of the ignorance of Ron Paul’s faithful that they don’t know the difference between a not-for-profit foundation and a PAC.”

Another fantasy from the Paul camp is the claim that his positions have never changed, that he has always been consistent. Paul’s changing story about his role in the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and conspiracy-touting newsletters that bore his name in the 1980s and 1990s lays that lie to rest. At first he claimed the words were his and taken out of context, then his story changed to “I wrote some of the articles.” Now the story is “I didn’t write them, I didn’t read them and I disavow them.”

Ron Paul’s hypocrisy on the newsletter issue is so blatant that more questions are being raised about his handling of the matter.

If Ron Paul wants others to take responsibility for their actions, he should take responsibility for his. Otherwise his credo is the same serial hypocrisy he correctly accuses Newt Gingrich of. If materials go out under Ron Paul’s name, advancing Ron Paul’s interest, it is not enough to say, in effect, “I did not know, I never knew, don’t blame me.”

I believe if Ron Paul did take personal responsibility it would help his campaign, but in any event, he should hold himself to the same standards he applies to everyone else.

Nice try, congressman. There’s his name in giant, bold letters at the top of each issue. On some editions his face appears at the top, or his signature at the bottom. The lack of bylines attached to specific articles, his defenders say, means Dr. Paul can’t be held accountable for the words they contain. But the newsletters include first-person, biographical mentions like “my wife Carol” and “my youngest son … starting his fourth year of medical school.” His wife’s name is Carol; his youngest son, Robert, is a physician.

Even if surrogates actually wrote the material for Dr. Paul, so what? When politicians authorize press secretaries and ghostwriters to pen their statements, speeches and books, it is universally understood that the politician whose name appears atop the stationery or on the jacket cover is accountable. Once those newsletters went in the mail, Dr. Paul owned every word they contained — period.

But don’t let Dr. Paul’s impish, avuncular and professorial style fool you. He’s arguably the most megalomaniacal candidate in a 2012 Republican field that includes Newt Gingrich. And he’s trying to squirm out of taking responsibility for his writings.

I now brace myself for the torrent of emails from Dr. Paul’s vigilant supporters. When those emails arrive, I shall adopt the Ron Paul Defense: Despite my name and picture at the top of this column, I’m so busy lately I can’t remember for sure whether I wrote all the words in this column, nor did I read them before or after the column went to press. So I can’t be held responsible for calling their guy the racist, anti-gay conspiracist he is.

Hypocrisy, however, has long been a Ron Paul trademark but such facts don’t matter to Paul’s cult-like followers. Their candidate — in their narrow, parochial view of the world — is incapable of mistakes, of human fallacies. He is the political messiah they blindly claim will save all of us from themselves. In the end, American voters will save us from Ron Paul by rejecting him at the polls.

If Paul were caught screwing a nun on the steps of the Capitol, his followers would probably claim it was a trap by a “liberal” Catholic church.

Such is the nature of blind partisanship.

Paul’s followers are also well-known for spamming any web site that dares question the sainthood of their candidate. An editorial last week that suggested their candidate was selling America short to get rich brought the usual avalanche of hate email, spam and computer generated comments.

Capitol Hill Blue’s spam filters caught more than 5,000 fake emails from a handful of IP addresses. More than 2500 came from phony email accounts. More than 1500 contained racial, homophobic or anti-Semitic slurs. Some claimed racism by other candidates or slams against their religions.

Such comments don’t make it onto this site. We verify email addresses, look for spam from singular IP addresses and flag comments that contain obscenities, racial slurs or threats.

One trend we did find interesting in looking at the comments: More than 500 questioned our use of a quote from an anonymous former Paul staff member. All came from posters users anonymous “handles” instead of their names and 83 percent from fake email addresses.

“All came from posters users[sic] anonymous “handles” instead of their names and 83 percent from fake email addresses.”

Anonymity reduces the accountability one perceives to have for their statements and removes the impact these statements might otherwise have on their reputation. Anonymity provides a soapbox for disruptive conversational behavior, hence the term “Internet troll” which is often used to refer to those who do this online. Put in another way, irrelevant nobodies.

As to Ron Paul partisans, they need to open their eyes (minds?) and see that he is nothing more then a nut no different then any other power hungry nut.

Well Bill, were one really an internet troll, looking to do more damage than mere reparte can bring, he’d probably figure out that you’re the BC who lives in the Phoenix area, get himself a $39.95 Intelius background check on said individual and have himself a new identity… complete with wads of credit, etc. And you’re just one such target.

If you’re not THAT BC, then where’s all the transparency and accountability? And, anyway, as I’ve said before, why should BC’s opinion mean any more to me than that of Tweedle Dee or any other irrelevant nobody?

You are right Bill…we should monitor anonymous free speech & make it criminal. That way only statists’ and lock step conformists’ such as yourself could say what they really feel without fear of reprisal.

If Ron Paul is a nut, then I’d rather not be sane. He’s the right president for the moment. People are realizing the course this country is taking is destructive. Overspending, the something for nothing mentality, and endless wars for oil, is going to be the end of the US as a super power.

I think there are two things you are overlooking. First of all, Ron Paul supporters are average people who use the internet for information, not television and newspapers. Because of this, their information is generally more diverse and “factually relevant”, since the media today is bought and sold. Unbiased is basically a way of saying they’ll take money from anybody to say anything. So in addition to finding mainstream articles like this, there are also ones where people take the time to explain the entire situation with facts and examples that we can read.

Second, by claiming in your article that ALL RP supporters are uninformed and stupid really just shows that you don’t know anything about who they are. Given, some people might be very impatient and know-it-all about the issues without backing them up, but everyone is like that. Even your article comes across like that now too. It’s a fault of individuals, not of a certain group of people.

By the way, if Ron Paul was racist, why would he end the War on Drugs, which he claims wrongly stereotypes and convicts all non-white nationalities and holds them in prison for non-violent drug crimes?

Why, when he was practicing medicine and turning away Medicare and Medicaid (and also in debt from school), did he deliver children for all nationalities for free? He’s always been against racism, and the fact you take these Newsletter which have his name printed on them and fabricate this made-up world where he’s the leader of the KKK just isn’t reality. He lives by what he says, and those Newsletters aren’t it.

Yeah, the guy who wants to stop killing tens of thousands of Arabs every year in neverending wars, who wants to pardon hundreds of thousands of predominantly black people for drug crimes (blacks make up 15% of drug users but 60% of those who spend time in jail for drug crimes, hispanics and natives make up the majority of the remainder), is responsible for racist newsletters he didn’t even write at a time when he was busy with his medical practice and not active in politics. Maybe the reason his supporters have no trouble believing his story on the newsletters is that he not only hasn’t ever said or done anything racist in the entirety of his political career, but he’s the only major party Presidential candidate trying to end the most significant instance of institutionalized racism today, the war on drugs? Or because his foreign policy consists of putting himself in the shoes of people of other nationalities and cultures and considering how we would feel if our roles were reversed before acting around the world.

The reason we’re so “fanatical” about Paul has nothing to do with Paul as a person. It has to do with his policies, and with the fact that he has not wavered once on upholding his policies in office, whatever his personal failings elsewhere may have been. We live in a country where taxing cigaretes to subsidize tobacco farmers is considered normal, where our regulatory agencies are staffed almost entirely by people from the industries they’re supposed to be regulating, where we elect people to office to support the lower and middle classes only to watch them redistribute wealth upwards through subsidies, bailouts, stimulus packages, and other kickbacks to special interests, and you wonder why we’re willing to overlook a couple of minor flaws in the guy who wants to change all of that?

What professional ‘reporter’ would even write such slanderous remarks. Your article resembles the temper tantrum of a 2 year old who isn’t getting their way! Half your article is dedicated to how your lame company screens emails, whatever – everyone is laughing at you, and your absurdities. YOU are a joke

I love how the ‘anti-Semitic’ link above simply directs users to the ‘anti-Semitism’ page on wikipedia – instead of providing a link to any anti-Semitic statements made by Ron Paul. Second, Ron Paul has more support among black voters than any other candidate, and the NAACP has made statements dismissing the idea that Ron Paul is racist. Nice spin.

Lastly what is this statement about: “…if Ron Paul did take personal responsibility it would help his campaign, but in any event, he should hold himself to the same standards he applies to everyone else.” Paul has already taken moral responsibility for the statements, and has admitted he has been negligent in having them published. How much more accountable should he be?

This entire website is a total joke. Ms. Brewer, how does it feel that all you have amounted to in life is a hack journalist on a hack website? I am embarrassed for you.

Shirley Brewer, you should be ashamed of your aggressive, vicious attack on such a good man.

However vulgar, the true meaning of your reckless assault on Dr. Paul is not lost on us, and we will hold you accountable. I will pay special attention works penned by “Shirley Brewer” in the future and act accordingly.

The American People stand firmly behind Dr. Paul. We’re tired of the endless wars. We’re tired of the lies. We’re tired of watching helplessly as our beloved nation burns to the ground.

Ron Paul’s message has been far from racist and homophobic. It’s consistent.
He is right that our justice system treats blacks unfairly and it needs to be changed
Paul has always said to remove government from marriage, to allow consenting voluntary daults define what marriage means to them
He’s right when he said our foreign policy will cause terrorism
He is right when he said we are losing freedoms
He is right on the FED
He was right on the housing bubble
He has been right on the economy
He is right on the wars, which is why 71% of the military support him
He is right for America, regardless of what some newsletters say. Now, let’s see what the corporate owned Media (who by the way also owns many Defense Contracts) will say to distort the message.

I’ve been in more presidential elections that most others and I can explain that there is no perfect candidate anywhere in America. We all have our lists of agenda items near and dear to our hearts and we check off our choices based on their words; not the words of anonymous bloggers.

I would rather have an Atheist in power but that dream is 50 years away (I don’t have 50 years) so I would choose a man who might (not will) have enough respect for the lives of Jews and Arabs as well as Christians when it comes to wars. Paul will never sanction the removal of Roe v Wade but he will respect it. He will never sanction gay marriages but he will respect the states rights to do so.

Your reporting is similar to a tantrum thrown by a two year old who isn’t getting his/her way. Also, your monitoring of the comments and deleting anything you find derogatory, (such as my previous comment) especially after the slanderous remarks YOU wrote about Ron Paul, is a testament to your media bias and your overall agenda! What joke-of-a-reporter would write such slanderous remarks.

Your monitoring of the comments and deleting anything you find derogatory, (such as my previous comment) especially after the slanderous remarks YOU wrote about Ron Paul, is a testament to your media bias and your overall agenda! Your reporting is similar to a tantrum thrown by a two year old who isn’t getting his/her way. What joke-of-a-reporter would write such slanderous remarks.

I’ve complimented Doug Thompson in the past concerning his choice of photo’s that support an article, but this one caused some concern on my part since it seems the corner of the mouth effect has been “photoshopped” which supports my thesis several articles back that the site host has an axe to grind concerning this guy. He’s not done so in the past, so what’s up? Why the value-added imaging insult?

It’s your site, but methinks I need a break from what has seemingly degenerated into character assassination of a candidate. I’m not defending Paul per se, but wouldn’t like such image tweaking done to any subject regardless of controversy surrounding them. Paul is what he is, so sticking to the facts about the man without this imaging nonsense would be appreciated.

Another thing I’ve noticed over time is that all these new site editorialists;I.E.,CHB contributors seem to have the same rhythm and meter to their writing style including misspellings, choice of words and analysis that are unique to our site host. It’s hard to cloak one’s writing style. There’s programs to which text can be fed and will give the probability if it’s written by the same person. / : |

You are welcome to your misconceptions Carl but all articles are edited by the same person and editors tend to like certain structures and sentences.

As for typos, some of our readers — like Woody for example — are kind enough to point out mistakes when they see them. I guess you’d rather just bitch and moan. Humans make mistakes. Apparently, only saints like Ron Paul are incapable of human failings — at least in the eyes of their fanatical supporters.

Ron Paul is best friends with KKK Leader David Duke. Ron Paul hates jews, blacks and mexicans. Ron Paul and his cult followers are not real Americans. Ron Paul is endoresed by the Neo Nazi Party. Ron Paul is a loser﻿ and will never defeat the great Mitt Romney. Romney is a good mormon and has the family values we can all put our faith in. Ron Paul is not part of the GOP. We Republicans are the party of Lincoln and Ron Paul needs to quit and tell his supporters to follow Mitt Romney. Amen.

Paul has taken responsibility for neglecting to provide sufficient oversight of his newsletter business in the 1990’s, as recently as yesterday in the New York Times. But that is not really enough for the media and his opposition, is it? Why not simply call for what the media and the establishment really want: the removal of Paul from the Republican primaries.

The problem is, Paul’s supporters are not fooled by this smear campaign and will not vote for an establishment Republican candidate for president, so even it this works, it’s not going to work. Not really.

If my love for the constitution, personal liberty, personal responsibility and PEACE makes me part of a “cult” then so be it.

What does your love for endless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars, bailouts, and the destruction of our great country make you, Sherry? Stupid. Don’t like that name? Well…it’s just my opinion…much like this piece of propaganda is just yours.

Call me names all you want, Sherry and Pals from the propaganda mainstream media, I’ll just say “I know you are, but what am I?” :p

Oh…and this is my real name, and feel free to email me back to make sure.

I’m loving this deluge of Ron Paul coverage. CHB must now be genuinely worried about a Paul victory. More long-debunked racist slurs, please! More half-crazed rants that bear no relation to reality, please! More pictures of RP gurning, yes!

If a person’s success is measured by the clumsy desperation of his detractors . . . . .

Yeah Frank, we’re real worried about Ron Paul around here. So worried, in fact, that one or two of us might have lost a microsecond of sleep over the possibility of a Ron Paul presidency. But it was probably the jalapenos in our chili. At the moment, Ron Paul is good copy, nothing more, nothing less. As a contender, he’s meaningless but his past makes good reading.

We heard the same garbage from the Paul faithful in 2008. Just wait — they said — “you will see what happens when Ron Paul wins the Presidency.”

But a funny thing happened to Saint Paul’s march to the White House. Voters spoke and reality set in.

Ron Paul will never be President. Heck, he won’t even be the GOP nominee. It won’t happen this year. It won’t happen ever. That’s just a political fact of life. Paranoia pandering populists like Ron Paul come and go. This is the year when even Donald Trump had his time in the spotlight as a frontrunner. Paul might win Iowa but so what? Didn’t do Mike Huckabee any good in 2008. Didn’t make George H.W. Bush the nominee in 1980. And it won’t mean a damn thing in 2011. Iowa, like Ron Paul, is a throwback that has no relevance in today’s political world.

For a brief moment I thought you actually understood the significance of what’s happening here. Instead, you continue to frame things in that quaint, old-world paradigm: the one that increasing numbers of Americans are jettisoning in favor of something infinitely less threadbare, farcical and cheesy.

The point of Ron Paul is not to become president of an already failed system – it is something altogether more invigorating: the dismantling of a entire system of deception that has already made Thomas Jefferson’s warnings a brutal reality for millions. But of course I waste my breath when I mention the wisdom of the Founders. They have no relevance in today’s political world, do they?

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.Jefferson, letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, 1802

Carry on as you are, Mr Thompson. If I can’t get any genuine insight from your articles these days, at least I can get some amusement!

Ron Paul is a humanitarian in the sea of political lobbyist and corruption which undermine the American people. Look at not only his voting record while in Congress, but take a snapshot of his entire life. As young boy growing up on a farm, learning what hard work and savings really meant. Then a humanitarian choosing to not dodge the draft like Gingrich, but instead joining the Airforce to become a Flight Surgeon, and later a humanitarian becoming an OBGYN Doctor delivering babies.. multitudes of them. This man cares for life, as a humanitarian took his fight to congress and challenged the de-linking of the Gold standard, by history knowing that empires have consistently come to an end once the monetary policy of that empire was based on a fiat standard.. Paul, once again as a humanitarian sought to protect that very same thing which the Founders of this great nation sought also to protect, your life, your liberty, natural law rights which would ensure a freedom to obtain prosperity. Not only does Paul have a sound understanding of history, and where we have come from, he has endorsed the continued education in economic philosophy (Austrian Economics), he is very aware of the history of foreign nations (read: The Foreign Policy of Freedom) and again as a humanitarian seeks the protection of rights for all citizens of the whole world, which more so than any other candidate is known and supported by people around the world.

Guilty by association is a logic flaw…so Ron Paul is a crazy racist because some of his supporters are crazy/racist.

The newsletters were mostly an economic magazine, and less than 1% of it contained the racist articles. Ron Paul knew about and wrote about the ECONOMIC issues in the magazine. He didn’t read EVERY single article of the magazine.

Your monitoring of the comments and deleting anything you find not to your liking, (such as my previous comments) especially after the slanderous remarks YOU wrote about Ron Paul, is a testament to your media bias and your overall agenda! Your reporting is similar to a tantrum thrown by a two year old who isn’t getting his/her way. …And yes, I am going to repost this after you delete it. Why spend so much time reading and deleting comments when you could simply go back and delete your entire article. …or you could write an article about your love of big government, corruption and unconstitutional wars, then explain how Ron Paul would put a cramp on your agenda and that is why you don’t support him. At least that would be an attempt at honesty.

I hardly believe that Ron Paul is perfect, no one is, but which is worse, making or letting a few flippant comments be made about riots in a newsletter, or invading Iraq–resulting in thousands of deaths among of Americans and Middle Easterners, and hurting everyone in America by running up the national debt. Which of the current GOP candidates can we be sure won’t repeat the mistake with Iran? I am not quite as for a completely non-aggressive foreign policy as Paul is, but what’s your alternative? Do you really think we can just go on spending (on things foreign and domestic) like we are?

Well, Doug, You just emailed me and stated that comments are held in a cache until you approve them and that my previous remarks were simply held up in said cache, hence the reason they we’re not being displayed. Regardless, it’s still a slanderous article, and even the picture you chose of Ron Paul is an embarrassment to your company, not Ron Paul.

After you claimed — erroneously — that your comments were “deleted,” I went back and checked. You also erroneously stated that I said the comments are held in moderation until I approve them. That’s not what I said. I don’t review comments. The supervising editor. What I told you was:

Your comments were held for moderation because you were a new poster and once the original one was cleared this afternoon, all comments appeared, including your fourth comment, which you posted at 3:48 p.m.

Before you accuse me of getting things wrong about Ron Paul I’d suggest you get it right when you quote me.

You can’t delete something that has not yet been published. When someone new posts on this site, his or her comment is held in moderation until we verify the email and also make sure the post fits within out guidelines (no obscenities, threats, racial slurs, etc.). When a new poster make a comment, the post shows “held pending moderation.” Most commenters on this web site realize that but it seemed to escape some of the Ron Paul faithful.

We disagree on Ron Paul, Kel. So, what’s the big deal? You have your opinion and we have ours. The article above was clearly labeled an “editorial” and editorials are opinion.

What you see as slander others might see as truth. Mr. Paul is welcome to file legal action. In fact, I wish he would because discovery would force him to open up his books, the foundation’s books and all records pertaining to the newsletters. I doubt very seriously he would be willing to do so.

Dear Doug, The article above has no less than 5 paragraphs about how “Paul’s followers are also well-known for spamming any web site that dares question the sainthood of their candidate.” and how “Capitol Hill Blue’s spam filters caught more than 5,000 fake emails from a handful of IP addresses. More than 2500 came from phony email accounts.” Then the article proceeds to state, “Such comments don’t make it onto this site.” “…and flag comments that contain obscenities…” Maybe like the obscenity you made in your response to Carl Nemo, “I guess you’d rather just bitch and moan.” or is “bitch” no longer obscene? Did your high tech software not catch your own obscenity? Further, who allows slanderous comments such as, “If Paul were caught screwing a nun on the steps of the Capitol, his followers would probably claim it was a trap by a “liberal” Catholic church.” Editorial or not, it’s defamatory, and slanderous… not to mention just plain stupid and immature. Your wish for Ron Paul to file legal action may never come to fruition; however, all you have to do is maintain your current mode of operation and I’m certain legal action will be brought upon you by someone. I do wonder, on a slightly more serious note, if anyone from your staff has read the actual articles in the Ron Paul newsletters, or have simply reposted the excerpts like the rest of the media. While I’m at it: “The supervising editor.” is not a sentence, and I’m still a little confused as too the meaning. As you know, sentences NEED verbs; or did you miss that day in slander-school as well? Just because it’s titled an ‘editorial’ does not mean that you can simply say anything you want with complete disregard for the truth!
—————————————
Finally Doug, I cannot believe you don’t support Ron Paul based on the views you express here: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7841.shtml

Sadly, Doug is clearly just into selling advertisements. He knows that by running slanderous ‘editorials’ on Ron Paul, he will get traffic to his site. The more controversial the better. There are 10 advertisements on this page alone. Just like when he “…worked for Republican members of Congress and for the GOP in various political roles.” Doug continues by stating “I attempted to ease my conscience with the knowledge that although I cashed paychecks from Republicans, I never, in fact, was one.” Just like here, he is just cashing paychecks from advertising sales. Now if I can only find a bad photo of Doug somewhere on the internet to run along side these quotes. (as his organization has done with Paul.)

Anyone who knows anything about the economics of web publishing knows that ads on web pages don’t come close to covering the cost of putting a news site on the Internet. Yes, we have ads. They pay, at best, about 30 percent of the cost of keeping Capitol Hill Blue running. The rest comes out of my personal resources. Always have, always will.

But anyone who thinks we do this to sell ads only showcases their ignorance about this site. Capitol Hill Blue is not now, nor will it ever be, a business. It is a labor of love. Long time readers know this. It is only the latecomers who pop in here from time for time for drive-bys who don’t understand our history and our purpose. We’ve been at this for more than 17 years.

There’s no animus towards any particular candidate but there is deep animus towards a flawed system that needs serious reform. That reform will not come from political opportunists and I consider Ron Paul to be nothing more than just another opportunist who cashes in on the system. That’s my opinion and — as the one who pays the bills around here — I have the right for that opinion to dominate the tone of the coverage by this web site.

As the current lead article on the home page clearly demonstrates, we don’t care for ANY of the current crop of GOP candidates for President. I consider ALL of them unfit for office, every single one. I also don’t care for the current occupant of the White House and have written so on many occasions.

Ron Paul, in my opinion, is just another corrupt politician in a corrupt system — no more, no less.

Don’t like that opinion? Too bad. It stands. This web site will do what it has always done — go after the system that allows such corruption to fester. The problem will not be solved by idolizing corrupt politicians — any corrupt politician — including Ron Paul. Partisans who buy into his hype — or the hype of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama or anyone else — will not find salvation here.

With regards to Ron Paul being a supposed anti-semite, I think Counterpunch says it best…

“But the truth is: What other country can you name which is almost totally dependent upon the US for its military, yet can nonetheless make threats to use its US-supplied weapons to start a potential global war (by invading Iran), with Washington left pleading with it not to take such an action? There is no other such country. Any other country dependent upon the US for its military weapons has to march to US orders or else. While we’re at it, what other lobby can you name that has had spies working for it, including spies in the Pentagon who have gone to jail for disclosing US military secrets, and which nonetheless remains a prime venue for presidential candidates to come and speak? Answer: There is no other such lobby.”

Having been an unbiased observer of US politics for many years now one finds it extremely easier to ask a very simple question:

What politician, in the fulness of time, does not become a hypocrite?

The same question goes for the rest of us as well.

Having read the above article (one of many negative RP articles on this site, mmmm) it left one feeling that RP is by far the best of a rotten bunch (sans Kucinich and a few others who didn’t vote for the NDAA – the rest are f’ing dangerous).

At present the US national debt is over 100% of GDP and growing. The debt will never be paid back, or if it is it will be with worth less dollars. Everybody knows this.

With costly wars and US military bases all over the world, one wonders just how long this can go on, especially with China helping underwrite said aggression for selfish economic reasons – but will such continue if Iran is attacked?

What if China flooded the financial world with worthless US treasuries? What do you think that would do to homeland USA? Think about it.

The War on Terror has been nothing more than a protection racket bleeding cash from the US taxpayer to enrich the privileged few. If everybody does not know this by now, then they must be drunk on kool-aid – follow the money. (ten years ago today Halliburton shares closed at $6.49 – today they closed at $34.14, no bid crony contracts are obviously good for Dick’s business). House prices have dropped 30% and more in just a few years.

From where I sit RP appears to be one of the few who takes seriously the destructive consequences that war and fiat money (and the relationship between the two) have on the economy and the people it supports (sans the elite).

Racist newsletters are small potatoes when considered in context with the Big Picture – what matters, what really matters? That is the question one needs to ask.

One thing for sure is RP will never get to be POTUS – any President that challenges the power of the bankers ends up in deep shit: Jackson, Lincoln, Kennedy.

Wall Street along with their global partners in crime: the City of London, will make sure BO gets re-elected, even it means starting another patriotic war to distract and unite the plebs, while robbing them blind.

Finally:

I was brought up to be a racist, not covertly but overtly. I was led to believe that we white fellas had a problem with the black fellas yet as I grew up I soon learned it was the white fellas who were the problem, having done despicable things to these innocent people.

These days I no longer look at it as a white fella, or a black fella problem, for in reality its a human problem.

Almandine, I’m sure our ‘elitists in charge’, being the globalists they are at heart would emulate 18th century French aristocrats by simply saying…”let them eat cake” while there’s mass rioting, starvation and our cities burn; so too as they enjoy the comfort of national bunkers provided with a ten year supply of food, an endless supply of movies, reading material, entertainment and ‘dark pleasures’ including ‘comfort women’ provided on the national taxpayers’ dime under the auspices of COG (Continuity of Government). Their mantra…”we’ve got our ours…screw you the people”…! / : |

As a native Texas, well into my 60’s I’m not stranger to the very unorthodox politics of Ron Paul.
.
I’ll say the following until I drop:
.Ron Paul’s politics are driven by his ideology to disempower,redefine and restructure the federal government with little regard for the practical consequence to society.
.People don’t take the time to actually dissect his position and think them through.
.
There would be serious consequences to many of his extreme ideas.
.
1. Eviscerate Entitlements: Believes that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unconstitutional, and has compared the failure of federal courts to strike them down to the courts’ failure to abolish slavery in the 19th century.
.That’s totally not a possibility as he would pursue dissolving these programs. There would be devastating consequences…think about it.
.
2. Lay Off Half His Cabinet: Wants to abolish half of all federal agencies,including the departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor.
.Alrighty then! Wander through each of the agencies and see how they might enhance your life without them.
.
3. Enable State Extremism: Would let states set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, and most other issues.
.Come to Texas to Live under the rule of POPE PERRY!
.
4. Protect Sexual Predators’ Privacy: Voted against requiring operators of wi-fi networks who discover the transmission of child porn and other forms online sex predation to report it to the government.
.Nothing like watching the local pedophiles working in our public schools kicked back watching kiddie porn in the school computer while dreaming about which kid will be the next victim.
.
5. Rescind the Bin Laden Raid: Instead of authorizing the Navy Seals to take him out, President Paul would have sought Pakistan’s cooperation to arrest him.
.Brilliant thinking! Pakistan hates America and would have made bin Laden President after releasing his crazy ass.
.
6. Keep Monopolies Intact: Opposes federal antitrust legislation, calling it “much more harmful than helpful.” Thinks that monopolies can be controlled by protecting “the concept of the voluntary contract.”
.Major Corporations are RAPING people around the world on a daily basis…just because they can!
.
7. Lay Off Ben Bernanke: Would abolish the Federal Reserve and revert to use of currencies that are backed by hard assets such as gold.
.End the Federal Reserve? Not to bad of an idea, but go back to a gold standard? Impossible. NO COUNTRY is operating off of a gold standard. Politicians won’t allow it. It’s their free meal ticket to print money at will.
.
8. Stop Policing the Environment: Believes that climate change is no big deal and the Environmental Protection Agency is unnecessary. Most environmental problems can be addressed by enforcing private-property rights. Paul also thinks that interstate issues such as air pollution are best dealt with through compacts between states.
.Oh really? Private corporations are about profit, not protection. States manage their own? Texas skies would like like a mud pie and we’d be drinking crude and pesticides if Perry had his way.
.
9. Not Do Anything, but Still…: Would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was a “massive violation of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of a free society.”
.Yeaaaassasss Mr. Paul, anything you say Mr. Paul. Izzz be doin whatever you want Mr. Paul…but pleazzz don’t hit me.
.
10. Let Markets Care for the Disabled: “The ADA should have never been passed,” Paul says. The treatment of the handicapped should be determined by the free market.
.The disabled were virtually prisoners – by not having access to common everyday necessities. Maybe they need to be gathered up and put away like during the earlier centuries. You know asylums and such.
.
11. First, Do Harm: Wants to end birthright citizenship. Believes that emergency rooms should have the right to turn away illegal immigrants.
.Okay…okay. Then who will be the next group to be turned away? Certainly little children of those pest people who live off the system need to be turned away just to teach the parents a lesson.
.
The above position are some of his most minor beliefs.
.
Don’t just read about his positions, think them through. His website will give you more to consider. A bunch more.

Gregg, I’m well aware of the comprehensive ‘draconian’ measures that Ron Paul advocates, but let’s get serious here. He can’t do much unless Congress authorizes such.

I’m a pragmatist, so I can only hope via his powers as “Commander in Chief” of our armed forces he can pull the plug on this tax debt draining, monstrosity of this endless, “no win” war on terror.We’re being bled white on the sands of times…believe it! We cannot continue on our national course.

Paul simply doesn’t have the power to completely disassemble our existing governmental agencies and programs etc., but we are in such desperate straights, he’s the only one seemingly willing to do something rather than nothing; I.E., continuing business as usual under the auspicies of alternative candidates if they be so nominated.

We need to jettison Obama, so we are in desperate need of anyone who’s willing to drastically alter the order of the day for our national benefit.

Carl, Ron Paul is extemely capable of throwing the government into a long, drawn out state of grid lock…even among his so-called party members who don’t and wont subscribe to his political beliefs.

But that’s not the real problem. The corporate owners of government don’t like him at all. It’s not rocket science to figure out probably hundreds of reasons they would undermine him at every chance via the power that they hold over Congress and the Supreme Court.

He’d be a waste of time in the White House.

Wanting to put just anybody in office is an act of desperation. Paul is just another “anybody”. He’d be about as useful as the testicles on the Pope.

“He’d be about as useful as the testicles on the Pope.”…extract from post

Ha…! There’s been a number of Pope’s throughout the history of the Catholic church that were ‘randy goats’ indeed covering all genre’s of x-rated pleasures that would make a modern era pornographer blush.

My family is Catholic and most of my schooling was via nuns, later Jesuit brothers etc. I’m not a practicing Catholic since I’ve evolved into an agnostic. I consider all religions to be one of the root causes of the world’s societal problems due to their unholy alliance with governments of the same stripe for the purpose of controlling and shaking down the unwashed masses.

So if Ron Paul would be that ‘corrupt pope’ to our benefit, then I’ll take that too. I’d make a pact with the devil for my soul to save this nation from the terminally corrupt sob’s that have hijacked the USS America. : |

I loathe them all; I.E., those that would sell our nation out all for a few dollars, euros, shekels or yuan more.

The plight of our nation in relation to these usurpers…

*****

For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up. …Hosea 8:7 King James bible

Sherry, Newt would agree with you. “Ron Paul Supporters, Including Veterans, are “Indecent” according to Newt Gingrich.” So which “conservative” republican war monger do you prefer to usher in WWIII? Newt or Mitt?

Only neonazis and ostriches support Ron Paul now. Who would pay to publish and mail a news letter, in his own name, for 22 years, without ever even READING one of them? If that’s the way he runs a newsletter, gods help us if he ever gets in the White House!

It’s seldom that people are wrong about EVERYTHING. Ron Paul says a lot of things that make a lot of sense, and need to be heard.

“thomas,” Nelson Linder, Austin president of the NAACP, said that Paul isn’t a racist and he’s being smeared because he’s a threat to the political establishment. Linder has knows Paul for 20 years. How long have you known Paul?

So I wonder what our site host Doug Thompson has to say about this black man’s testimony about the younger Dr. Paul’s consideration and attention to his Hippocratic oath as a physician? To honorable men oathing is serious business and not mere words attested to with hand upon a bible.

Regardless of the slanderous and libelous attacks upon this man, I have high confidence that he will honor his Presidential oath of office if so elected.

***

I, Ron Paul, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

***

It’s tragic that the Presidential oath does not include that which is included in a military enlistment oath; I.E., …defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic so help me God.

In candidate Paul’s case…believe it…! To the opposition candidates the Constitution will be nothing but a g-damn piece of paper, regardless of the fact that allegedly G.W. Bush didn’t say so per our site host. Based on G.W. Bush/Cheney’s actions in office they surely treated it as such. Unfortunately they set the metric for evermore corrupt presidencies into the future. This nation needs a seachange concerning corruption in our highest office. Honor must be brought back to this office.

We can bank on the fact that Ron Paul will be using the U.S. Constitution as his guiding principles for administering the office of the presidency.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If Ron Paul thinks what we print about him is libel or slanderous, let him sue. Please let him sue. I’d welcome it because discovery in a law suit means he has to open his books and all records pertaining to his role in his newsletters.

That’s why he will never sue. In a libel case, truth is an absolute defense. Ron Paul is a con man.

It’s a moot point because Paul will lose again, just like he always has and he will take the left over money and run while all of you who bought into his con still won’t realize you’ve been had. That’s why con men thrive.

Thanks Doug for your late night, succinct reply concerning Paul’s loss as being a fait accompli.

This nation will surely be in better hands with ‘business as usual’ Obama at the helm for a second term or in the event of a loss on his part; Mitt, Newt, Rick, Michelle et al. continuing the same…no? / : |

Nelson Linder, Austin presidnet of the NAACP, said that Paul isn’t a racist and he’s being smeared because he’s a threat to the political establishment. Linder has knows Paul for 20 years. How long have you known Paul?

I’ve been covering politics as a journalist or working on the inside as an operative for more than 45 years and I have never seen a weaker field of candidates — including the incumbent — in a Presidential race.

I’m reminded of a front-page editorial in the Franklin (VA) News-Post by merchant marine-turned-editor Kermit Salyer in the 1964 Presidential campaign between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater.

Wrote Salyer:

It seems like every day that someone comes up and asks just whom this newspaper is going to endorse in the upcoming Presidential election.

After careful consideration, we have decided that we cannot support or endorse either of the Presidential tickets.